The Short-Term Impact of the Work of Thomas Cromwell - Coursework Example

The Short-Term Impact of the Work of Thomas Cromwell It is unavoidable that there should be the most extensive difference of opinion regarding every grand icon in the history of Reformation, and it is useless to try to create an estimate of Thomas Cromwell’s life and work that will convince those who espouse distinct opinions of the immense struggle during his lifetime. But Protestants and Catholics should concur on the enduring and basic characteristic of the changes which he created: his success in accomplishing his life’s objective, as proclaimed to Cavendish on the All Hallows Day, is unquestionable (Dawson 1993). He worked fully outside the huge religious uprising of his period, and only exploited it to fulfil his political goals (Hutchinson 2009). Cromwell emerged at a time when things were in a disturbed condition and equipped for a change: his character, unyielding, pragmatic, and detached, made an impact on every aspect of the national life (Morris 1999). He did not only reigned supreme in Privy Council, Convocation, or Parliament, but on every administrative unit (Hutchinson 2009). The eternalness of his work was primarily attributable to the manner in which he secured every reform which he pioneered. He advocated the secession from Rome by disparaging in turn the friars, clergy, and bishops, and by repressing the churches (Chibi 1999). He gained the support of the King in nearly all reforms which he formed, and then coerced Parliament officially to sanction it (Cromartie 2006). His action was by no means unproductive; the abrupt outcome of it was nearly always the realisation of the objective at which he aspired. This brings this essay to the short-term impact of Thomas Cromwell’s work on the relationship between Crown and Parliament. It is in this case that we locate the most interesting example of the conflict between the enduring and the abrupt effects of Cromwell’s work. It has been recounted how Cromwell’s outlook towards Parliament diverged from that of his forerunner (Merriman 1902). It has been recounted how Wolsey had viewed the national assembly as an immense entity which persistently obstructed his plans, so that his aversion of it forced him to call upon it as occasionally as necessary, and only when it was completely crucial (Thompson 1953). It has been explained how Cromwell was fated to go beyond necessary, and how by violence, deception, and packed elections, he succeeded in translating it into a completely submissive tool of the Crown’s will (Hutchinson 2009). The royal power ceased to be feared, and became one to be depended upon; a strong partner that always abided by the slightest whims of the Crown (Hutchinson 2009). As a result, instead of infrequently gathering like under Wolsey, it was being persistently called upon, as an essential way to realise the plans of Henry and his cleric (Morris 1999). Although the second survived, everything worked precisely as he had planned, and the Parliament stayed ‘obedient’ (Merriman 1902). However, when the notion of despotism had died after his death, and England had started to recuperate from the fear Cromwell’s organisation had encouraged, Parliament unexpectedly understood that it had an inherent power (Dawson 1993). Its regular gatherings which obviously had aided the Crown, so long as the Houses under Cromwell had stayed obedient, now started to operate on the opposite side, and helped it in losing the binds that tied it to the King (Baker 1670). It had been the idea of Cromwell that it should continue the structures of constitutional liberty, as a kind of offering to the widespread sentiment, whilst in fact all its legislative force was weakened (Burton & Goddard 1828). Now that the strain was eradicated, the living force renewed, and unearthing all the long-established practices still unbroken started to impart itself into Lords and Commons (Green 1885). The previous autonomy of the Houses restored and heightened, so that the ultimate impact of Cromwell’s work was on the one hand to spoil all attempts to realise the supremacy of the Crown, and on the other to establish the foundation for a constitutional regime (Spence-Jones 1898). Thomas Cromwell, according to Smith (1984), has stood out in the destruction of marvelous churches and priories in England so as to expand the Crown and its advocates and in establishing a kind of Tudor autocratic state. Had the disposition of England been one that may enduringly endure any kind absolute monarchy or despotism; had the goals the grand minister singled out been such that when the short-lived fear and folly encouraged by his own character had not heeded, they may have stimulated one spark of fervour in the English spirit, the work of Cromwell would have been the greatest icon in the history of his country (Cromwell 1818). However, it was not fated to be so. The national waft was completely resentful against him and to the viewpoints for which he advocated, so that a good deal of his policy was repealed after his death (Ellis 1891). I think, personally, that Cromwell was absolutely truthful in his effort to set up an omnipotent kingship under the structures of perceived constitutionalism. He carried it out not from self-centred purposes, but because he thought it to be the solitary path to national success. The violence that tarnished his career and character cannot be justified, but could be controlled by this issue, and by his bold courage in purposefully obliterating the Curial power of the English Church and courts (Mackintosh 1834); on this aspect of his effort he was the genuine descendant of Wyclif, the genuine forerunner of his own grand kinsman (Hutchinson 2009). Cromwell witnessed a world where a series of monarchical fervour overwhelmed the whole Western Europe: a confidence in the supreme power of the Crown was the most relevant feature of the political climate of his time (Van Dyke 1904). He was basically a man of his period in his good qualities and in his weaknesses, and could barely have foreseen modern constitutionalism. His accomplishments strengthened the Reformation even though the mention of his demolition of a number of the irrational absurdity that encompassed much of the Catholic Church is a fairly far-reaching decision (Smith 1984). Reformation was considered necessary; what England became was not a nation-state, but a destroyed empire. But Cromwell did a great deal to build the apparatus of modern government and at times only acted as his contemporaries did (Smith 1984). Hence his course of action expired with him, yet his effort lingered and was facilitated by reform and response ultimately to achieve outcomes far more splendid and eternal than he had imagined (Towers 1766). The tyranny of the Tudors collapsed with their empire, the nation’s liberties endured. A Closer Look on the Short-Term Impact of Thomas Cromwell’s Work on the Relationship between the Crown and Parliament The main legislative accomplishments of Cromwell were founded on two political premises: the belief that England was a self-governing nation-subject dependent on no external power and the notion of the law-making omnipotence of the King in Parliament, largely interpreted as a supreme monarchy operating through law and constrained only by the need for legislative agreement (Knight 1834). The ideas of Cromwell about administration and the appropriate relationship between the Crown and the Parliament are most evidently arranged in the Henrician laws upon which he wielded his power. The 1533 Act of Appeals was a major milestone in causing the secession from Rome; nevertheless, more constitutionally important is its proclamation that England is an autonomous nation-state, a proclamation that is radical not for its newness but because its official implications were recognised (King & Younge 1826). Authorising the assertions to national autonomy that Henry had maintained infrequently, the prelude to this act claims that England is “governed by one supreme head and King” (King & Younge 1826, 23) who possesses “plenary, whole and entire power... to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk residents or subjects within this realm, in all causes, matters, debates and contentions happening to occur... without restraint or provocation to any foreign princes or potentates of the world” (p. 23). The foreword evidently claims that the king require petition to no external power concerning issues in his empire. The legitimacy for this claim of national independence rests in history and divine institution (Dawson 1993); Parliament was only required to confirm the theoretical agreement of these powers. This parliamentary ratification of Henry’s declarations to independent government is also evident in the laws that accomplished the secession of England from Rome (Stephens 1845). The legislative work of Cromwell clarifies how the autonomy of the King is to be fulfilled in terms of concrete legal implementation (Burnet 1839). The laws that he affected advocate the legislative omnipotence of the Crown in Parliament by acknowledging an all-powerful monarchy limited merely by the need for the recognition and implementation of its assertions and policies by the Parliament (Morris 1999). The 1534 Act of Supremacy, for instance, establishes the Crown as head of the church, a role that is divinely granted and that therefore Parliament cannot award but only affirm (Burn & Fraser 1797): Albeit the King’s majesty justly and rightfully is... the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their convocations; yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof... be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England (p. 381). The purpose of the Parliament is to affirm what it asserts has previously been laid out as fact: the Crown’s rule of the church (Burn & Fraser 1797). The act, however, means that Parliament has the lower but essential task of imposing the headship of the Crown, as it authorises the concrete administrative and judicial decisions emanating from the theoretical truth of that absolute supremacy (Stephens 1845): Our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, Kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended (p. 203). Thomas Cromwell, as demonstrated in the discussion, has largely affected the relationship between the Crown and the Parliament through his efforts to delineate the separation of powers and existence of national liberties. References Baker, R. Chronicle of the kings of England: with additions. London, 1670. Burn, R. & S. Fraser. Ecclesiastical Law. London, 1797. Burnet, G. The history of the reformation of the Church of England. London, 1839. Burton, T. & G. Goddard. Diary of Thomas Burton. London, 1828. Chibi, A.A. “State Vs. Church: Implementing Reformation.” Journal of Church and State, 41.1 (1999): 77+ Cromwell, T. Excusions in the country of Essex. London, 1818. __________. Oliver Cromwell and his times. London, 1822. Cromartie, A. The Constitutionalist Revolution: An Essay on the History of England, 1450-1642. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Dawson, I. The Tudor Century. London, 1993. Ellis, J.J. Thomas Cromwell. Nisbet, 1891. Green, J.R. History of the English People. New York: Macmillan, 1885. Hutchinson, R. Thomas Cromwell: The Rise and Fall of Henry VIII’s Most Notorious Minister. St. Martin’s Press, 2009. King, E. & E. Younge. A collection of the reports of cases, the statutes and ecclesiastical laws. Great Britain: Courts, 1826. Knight, C. The Penny magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Great Britain, 1834. Mackintosh, J. The history of England: from the earliest times to the year 1588. London, 1834. Merriman, R.B. Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902. Morris, T.A. Tudor Government. London: Routledge, 1999. Smith, A.G.R. The emergence of a nation state: the commonwealth of England, 1529-1660. Michigan: Longman, 1984. Spence-Jones, H.D. The Church of England: The English Reformation. Harvard: Cassell, 1898. Stephens, A.J. The Statutes relating to the Ecclesiastical and Eleemosynary Institutions of England, Wales, Ireland, India and the Colonies; With the Decisions Thereon. Cambridge, UK: Plurabelle Books Ltd., 1845. Thompson, F. Short History of Parliament, 1295-1642. University of Minnesota, 1953. Towers, J. British biography. London, 1766. Van Dyke, P. Thomas Cromwell. Princeton University, 1904. Read More